Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Richard Blumenthal's Statement on Lying
People rarely lie outright. Whereas most think people fabricate reality with impunity, Statement Analysis shows that 90% of deception comes via withheld information. The brain is quite efficient at processing information in a matter that avoids the internal stress of contradicting reality.
Richard Blumenthal recently called for a special prosecutor recognizing the importance of truthfulness and impartiality.
This is interesting given the senator's own language.
Those who fabricate reality are less than 10% and in doing so, give us insight into how far they will go in deception. They pose a danger to society recognized by few.
When caught in a lie, the "mea culpa" is a direct insight into the subject's very being. The words chosen reveal four elements:
4. Personality Traits
This is how we identify anonymous authors who sent out threatening letters.
While running for office, Richard Bluemthal told Viet Nam Veterans that he was in Viet Nam, dodging bullets and knew the danger they suffered, hence, able to serve their needs in an elected office.
He then was researched and found to have never set foot in Viet Nam.
Question: Is it possible that a Harvard educated Attorney General could boast about his service in Vietnam even though he never went to Vietnam and secured 5 deferments just to avoid going there?
Answer: Yes, and here is his statement:
"On a few occasions, I have misspoken about my service and I regret that. And I take full responsibility, but I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."
That is a comment by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal regarding questions surrounding his past statements about his military service.
By now, you have learned to key in on the word "but" in Statement Analysis, to know the important information in a sentence follows this particular word.
"On a few occasions" remember, the shortest sentence is best. Additional words give us additional information. If a sentence can work without a word, the added word should be noted.
"few" is an attempt to minimize how often he has told these lies. The need to minimize the frequency suggests greater frequency.
"occasions" is used instead of formal speeches. This is an attempt to also minimize the deception he propagated in order to gain favorable results in an election. It was not in political or paid speech engagements, it was just a "few occasions" to which he addresses.
Remember, the statements made were in front of not only live audiences, but with cameras rolling. Was this just a "few occasions", or were they formal political addresses with large crowds and media?
Maybe he meant that he said it, off handedly, at a picnic, or something.
This raises an important question about the link between event and memory:
Would you forget that you didn't go to a war torn country, thousands of miles away, while being shot at with weapons that could have ended your life?
Given the nature of both danger and distant travel, experiential memory is increased by the accompanying hormonal response.
In short, no memory loss is expected.
Thus far, we have seen minimization, which presupposes that the subject has a need to minimize the information.
"I have misspoken about my service "
He now redefines what "lying" is into "misspoke."
Consider the linguistic theft within counterfeit language.
Language flows from reason, which separates us from the animals. Language is the currency in which we trade, so that a lie is a counterfeit currency; it is linguistic or communicative theft.
When one cannot trust the definition of language, communication has no reference point.
By changing lies into "mis-speaking", the subject gives us insight into his personality. This is to leave him with no verifiable reference point, and is the pattern of habitual and even sociopathic liars: to "move the ancient landmark" so that no trace of evidence remains.
It indicates a willingness to not only lie outright, but to use lies to defend himself.
One can only question what impact such a personality, combined with a strong intellect, would have on society, including cases he prosecuted. By changing language, he shows a willingness to break trust with society. Even Bill Clinton, with his parsing of words and subjective meaning of "sexual relations" did not appear to reassign language in this manner.
By redefining meaning within language, one cannot be held to a standard other than the elevation of self. This is a narcissistic and anti-social trait from one who is high minded (holding self in a very high regard).
No, he said he was in Vietnam and research has showed that he worked hard at making sure he was not in Vietnam, but safely in Washington, D.C, running "Toys for Tots" in the reserves.
"misspoken" past tense is a word used to soften or minimize (neutralize) the word "lied". Misspoken conjures up thoughts of an innocent mistake, rather than an intention to deceive.
"and I regret that"
"that" indicates distance, "this" indicates closeness, in our language. He instinctively distances himself, not from "lying" or a "lie" but he even distances himself from the softer "misspoken" regret. The regret, something of psychological distance, is seen in sociopathic language. The regret does not indicate human empathy (that is, feelings of empathy for victims of his deception) but due to personal consequence.
Please note that "regret"is an emotion.
He does not own that he lied. In fact, he refuses to call it a "lie", but telling Viet Nam veterans that he was in the land in which they suffered, and that he also suffered with them, is in his personal, internal subjective dictionary, just a "mis-speak." He does not hold empathy for those who voted for him in allegiance to a common experience: Viet Nam.
Now imagine what his career has been as a prosecutor.
Did he "misspeak" against the accused? Did he order his subordinates to do the politically expedient thing over and above the truthful and honest thing?
He has not owned, nor asked for forgiveness. I think anyone who said that they were in another country only to be caught lying would likely regret being caught. I believe his regret is genuine, but it is not linked to deception, but rather to having been caught.
Next we see the use of an unnecessary sentence:
"And I take full responsibility"
at first glance, this sounds strong. But remember, the shortest sentence is best. "I take responsibility" is shorter.
The word "full" is the emphasis that he feels he needs to add, thus weakening the statement. This is a "need to persuade" rather than allow the weight of truth in responsibility to fall upon him. Literally, he makes the taking of responsibility sensitive to him. In context, we see why it is sensitive to him;
First in the minimizing language,
then in the distancing language he uses but there is more.
The word "but" now employs the most important part of his message:
This word will now refute or minimize, via comparison, that which preceded it. The words following "but" are, in context, more important to the speaker:
"but I will not allow anyone to take a few misplaced words and impugn my record of service to our country."
he will "not allow"; forbid, control. One may consider how Richard Blumenthal has the ability to control how others "take" his words?
How can he "not allow"
"anyone" (neutral gender)?
This is insight into personality traits of one who not only holds himself in high esteem, but one who is acutely controlling, as if he can impact the public.
This shows the arrogance of a fabricator of reality.
The language of a narcissist is often laden with "Divine" like qualities. Recall Bill Cosby's threats against not only his victims, but journalists. "If I even hear your name..." as if his control over his environment could be invaded by outside influences.
He now expresses himself in terms of divinity; controller over destiny, and over the minds and hearts of Americans who will hear these words. He will not "allow"; language that deludes himself and shows how far from reality he is. It would be interesting to interview his close family and how they dealt with this powerful, egotistical status of control over all others.
When you read this you can now see why someone with his intellect and place in life can be so utterly void of common sense.
Does he have the ability to see how he makes himself sound?
Is someone of such a strong intellect so void of self awareness?
In your life, could you go to your job, or to your family, and simply announce that you were in, for instance, "war-torn Bosnia" during the height of conflict? You know, when they thought you were home, or at school, all that time, you were really dodging bullets in the streets of Bosnia. Your family might look at you and question not only your validity, but your mental health status.
What does this indicate?
Liars hold the world in contempt.
They have gotten away with lies fro an early age and believe themselves inherently superior to others. Even as a child, the fabricator of reality had his or her confidence grow with each successful deception.
As this grows, the self awareness diminishes, as the center of one's own universe is self.
It is equally absurd; showing how out of touch a deceptive person can become over the years. A young liar may be good, but a liar who reaches the age of a grandparent has a lifetime of practice at deception but ego overrides and causes them to look foolish.
"to take a few misplaced words"
Here we have a change in language, from misspoken to misplaced.
This is a form of "leakage" within language
A change of language represents a change in reality.
"When the girl kissed the man, he instantly fell in love with the woman. "
Notice the change? She was a "girl", but once they kissed, and love entered, she became a "woman."
A change of language is indicative of veracity.
Where there is no justification for the change, it is not only deception but gives insight into the loss of self-awareness within the fabricator of reality.
Question: Does he, therefore, believe his own words?
Answer: No. Deception is found in intent.
"The car ran roughly. I ran out of gas. I left the vehicle on the side of the road."
It was a car when it went, but now that it cannot transport, it is a vehicle.
Here, we have a change. His words were "misspoken" but now, are not "
misspoken at all, but were "misplaced", meaning, put into the wrong place.
It is interesting to note that he, himself, was "misplaced" by his own doing, putting himself, linguistically, in Viet Nam while he was in the United States.
This means that he stands behind his lies and reveals what his regret is:
That he spoke his lies in the wrong settings. Had there been no cameras running, he could have used his "Vietnam" experiences to persuade vets to vote for him and if called on the carpet, he could easily deny.
He will not allow someone to "take" these "misplaced" words. To him, the words are no longer "misspoken", as he affirms their validity: they were just in the wrong place, and this was done, not by him, but by someone else, of whom he will not "allow", as if he has control over others.
But because the cameras were rolling, it is hard for him to watch and listen to the lies he told.
He takes "full responsibility", but he has provided service to his counrty. The use of the word but suggests that he doesn't take responsibility at all, because he feels that he has a record of service to his country after all.
This politicians statement regarding the lies he told about his service in Vietnam reveal that he is a chronic, life long liar, who thought he was above being questioned, and is still in denial about his own mortality.
In his election, he asks for those who do not know him to trust him, while those who know him, and know, for example, that when he was 18, he was running Toys for Tots and not dodging bullets.
The arrogance and deceptive nature of the statement issued by Blumenthal tells us that this is a man who has long lied without restrictive or didactic consequence and that he has been a man of authority, who has had much success in exerting his will over others.
The narcissism is very likely sourced from childhood; not simply a trait from success.
This is a man who will do anything in life to advance or protect self.
There is no "limit" or discernible "bottom" from which he will not proceed further.
The lifelong habit of lying is who he is, and he will defend his lies rather than own them, employing his strong intellect and command of the English language.
A deep research into cases prosecuted may produce frightening results.